Greetings,
Mr. ASD. As good as your word...A couple of questions to the general population and maybe Mr. SD or one of our insurance gurus knows some of the answers. 1) How does the European boating industry handle this situation of "standards"? Private enterprise (like AYBC) or government? 2) Is the insurance industry large enough to maintain a pool of knowledgeable underwriters who can give a true assessment of certain risks that may be present in recreational craft? Case in point: the contentious Racor "non-conforming" fuel filters mentioned in another thread.

If you'd had a category that states the ABYC provides a useful service to the boating industry I'd have chosen that one. But I don't believe the ABYC in its current form provides a vital service.

I think what's needed is a forum, if you will, that provides guidelines for boat systems and structures that take into account advances in technology, processes and materials, and what's been learned over time. In that respect the ABYC in its current form does this.

However, I feel that there should also be a mechanism that ensures--- legally ensures--- that surveyors and other people/organizations/businesses that judge and "rate" a vessel's condition will not try to apply and enforce new standards to vessels that were designed and built before the technology, materials, processes and history were established.

I do not believe that the USCG should be charged with creating, administering and enforcing anything other than very basic, broadly applicable safety standards if for no other reason than history has definitively proven that if any organization is going to do something ineptly, expensively, and ineffectively it's going to be a government.

Claiming that ABYC standards must be applied to a vessel, particularly an older one, is akin to claiming that a Ford Model A pickup must be fitted with airbags, anti-lock brakes, and traction control. I get the impression that most people on this forum understand this but we still see posts about such-and-such a surveyor writing up a vessel for not having some particular feature that hadn't even been conceived at the time the vessel was designed and manufactured.

That, I believe, is something that needs addressing in a consistent, industry-wide and enforceable manner that prevents individual surveyors, insurance companies, etc., from imposing their own mistaken beliefs or assumptions on vessel owners, particularly the owners of older vessels.

One of my main concerns about the ABYC standards is that they are not freely available to the boating public. Access to the standards is restricted to ABYC members and there is no membership category for an individual boater. Yes, I am aware that parts of some of the standards are out there, but to get all the current standards you have to join ABYC. Personally I find the idea of being held to standards I can't access unacceptable.

I like the concept of AYBC standards, and I want my boat to comply with them.
I think that having standards in place provide a set of best practices that can and should be used by persons working on boats.

That said, the standards need to be easily assessable. I do not mind paying a fee (everything costs) but the standards need to be access able to be effective.

I think the current AYBC policy of only allowing marine professionals or students access to the standards defeats the whole purpose which should be to promote safety and safe installation practices.

A good example of something that works is the National Electrical Code. Anybody can buy a copy of the NEC code book, which provides detailed standards governing the installation of electrical equipment. You do not have to be an electrical professional to buy the code book.

Greetings,
Mr. ks. Now THAT'S the best idea out there and the solution to a whole bunch of problems the AYBC system now has (at least I perceive them as problems) BUT, won't that cut down on the profits of the mechanics and tradespeople one is required to hire to address "deficiencies" pointed out by surveyors?

ABYC standards aren't mandatory unless your insurance company decides they are. At my last insurance survey I had that issue to deal with. Admittedly that was partly due to a less than fully competent surveyor who also stated unequivocally that the keel bolts on my sailboat needed renewing despite the fact that the boat had encapsulated ballast and no keel bolts.

I do not agree with any of the poll choices either. I do agree with David and Kevin. It is apparent that they work with code on a regular basis.

I have no problem with the adoption of ABYC code for minimum construction standards. I do have issue with it for maintainance, and its use by surveyors and insurance companies. I believe that the ABYC should delineate between standards and best practices, not unlike API. I think that will come with time. It took almost 90 years before ASME came out with the PCC recommendations.

I do not think the USCG should be writing standards for commercial or recreational boats. Not their forte...

Somewhere around this site, I had a topic with hyperlinks to other governing bodies standards and practices.

My only complaint with the NEC is the standards are adopted by states as their body of electrical standards. At that point in time, a public standard should be available to the public. Since our work has to comply with certain NEC articles, technically I have to buy to whole thing to know the 3 paragraphs I have to comply with. As soon as a state gives it the force and effect of law, then you would think it would be publicly available. If the standards are so critical, they should be available for us that would like to do it on our own. Secret standards that are legally binding sound like the product of a mutual protection society.

As far as ABYC, I like to have a recommended way to do things, that I can choose to follow or not. I wish they were more easily accessible. However, once they become enforceable standards, they better be publicly available.

Greetings,
Mr. ks. Now THAT'S the best idea out there and the solution to a whole bunch of problems the AYBC system now has (at least I perceive them as problems) BUT, won't that cut down on the profits of the mechanics and tradespeople one is required to hire to address "deficiencies" pointed out by surveyors?

RTF, I nor anyone else here can speak to the rational of why the AYBC limits sale of its standards to marine professionals. I would be quite happy to pay my $99 a year to access a set of best practices. I would then use them when I am doing projects.

I support ABYC like I agree with UL, local building codes and neighborhood codes. It can protect us from our ignorance and helps keep us safe. I agree that the code should be accessible to all, but ABYC had a corner on the market here. That seems short sighted, but profitable to ABYC. I hope that era ends soon.

Wow...if false conclusions were bridges, y'all would have jumped to your deaths!

I do not believe any owner, buyer, manufacture, insurance or lender should be forced or require that ABYC suggested standards be enforced until:

1. They become a public forum
2. Public has input in any proposed standards
3. The board is elected

ABYC standards are not regulations or "codes,"...they are not enforceable. They ARE recommendations intended to protect the vessel and its occupants, that most people with any sense follow willingly and most insurance companies insist they be followed.

The public has all kinds of input into the creation of ABYC standards. Every major boat builder is a member as are surveyors, yards, dealers and any other person or business entity--including individual boat owners--who have a legitimate connection to the boating industry.

The public has a lot of input into ABYC standards....they are arrived at by consensus of the members of specific committees that consist of equipment mfrs, surveyors, yard owners and yes, boat owners. I sat on an ABYC sanitation project committee from 1992-1996...it's members included 2 yard owners, the president of a major sanitation equipment mfr (not Raritan fwiw... he chaired--and may still chair--the boat piping committee}, 2 NAMS certified surveyors and 2 boat owners. We met in Annapolis several times a year.

I nor anyone else here can speak to the rational of why the AYBC limits sale of its standards to marine professionals.

They don't. Anyone who has a valid use for them can buy them...members do pay less. And the board IS elected. Two previous board members--one a surveyor, the other a boat owner--are close friends of mine.I think the current AYBC policy of only allowing marine professionals or students access to the standards defeats the whole purpose which should be to promote safety and safe installation practices.

They don't. Anyone who has a valid connection to the marine industry can buy them They do charge members considerably less than non-members--and some may be available for free to some students... but any boat owner can buy them...just specific ones, or the entire library.

I have no problem with the adoption of ABYC code for minimum construction standards.

ABYC standards are not codes.
I do have issue with it for maintainance, and its use by surveyors and insurance companies.

You'd rather have anyone with a business license mess with your electrical system instead of an ABYC certified MARINE electrician? A lawn mower mechanic instead of an ABYC certified diesel mechanic to work on your diesel engines? You're ok with gate valves as seacocks...surveyors whose only qualification is, they have business cards that say they're a surveyor?

I believe that the ABYC should delineate between standards and best practices, not unlike API.

You, like at least half the people in this thread, are confusing standards with codes. They are not...standards ARE best practices recommendations! And btw, UL also has a marine standards committee...its standards are also "best practices recommendations" and are incorporated into ABYC standards.

As far as ABYC, I like to have a recommended way to do things, that I can choose to follow or not. I wish they were more easily accessible.

They're readily accessible, but not free or dirt cheap. Standards are not created once and set in stone...as technology evolves, so must standards evolve and change. Keeping them current is not cheap...neither is training and educating mechanics, yard personnel, surveyors and brokers. And all that is expensive! The "tuition" charged for certification training doesn't begin to cover the actual cost. Too many people put enough value on ABYC standards to WANT them, but not enough to be willing to pay a fair price for them.
However, once they become enforceable standards, they better be publicly available.

Iow, free. When standards become enforceable, they cease to BE standards...they become regulations which ARE enforceable and will be incorporated into the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), which is readily accessible for free.
I agree that the code should be accessible to all, but ABYC had a corner on the market here. That seems short sighted, but profitable to ABYC.

ABYC is a non-profit organization.

I hope that era ends soon.
Iow, you WANT the standards to become regulations just so you can get them for free?

I've said my piece. Hopefully I've managed to talk at least a few of you off the bridge railing.

Sorry folks for the confusion the poll created. My intent was to create a conversation surrounding ABYC.

To be transparent, I am not an ABYC fan or at least the way it is used. It is used as IF IT WERE THE LAW. For instance in another thread about batteries, the subject of fuel filters came about and the need for MA filters vs the standard Racor type which don't have the metal drain or shield. Yes my surveyor wrote up my filters. I disagree with the suggested ABYC standards.

If my boat ER is on fire, and my automatic fire suppression doesn't work, I am not staying on the boat. 2.5 minutes extra this mod may give me is really irrelevant. Just my $0.02 worth